Gays in the military: What would George Washington think?

For the first time since the "don't ask, don't tell" law was enacted in 1993 by President Clinton, the House Armed Services Committee has scheduled hearings to review it. The law disqualifies gays from serving in the military.

Individuals are deemed gay, according to this ruling, if they publicly state so. However, the military is prohibited from asking. Thus, "don't ask, don't tell."

We can anticipate a technical discussion. Does the presence of openly gay soldiers undermine cohesiveness of units, morale, and discipline? How would retention rates of troops or enlistments be affected?

We can be sure, though, that a discussion about the general moral implications of such a policy will not take place.

Early last year, then-chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Peter Pace called homosexuality "immoral." More fire and brimstone rained down on him than fell on the residents of Sodom and Gomorra for engaging in this behavior.

Rebukes came from Democrats and Republicans alike. GOP Sen. John Warner, a former chairman of the Senate Armed Services committee, writing his own scripture, challenged Pace's view that homosexuality is immoral.

Although a recent Zobgy poll of military personnel shows more opposed to allowing gays to serve openly than favoring (37 percent to 26 percent), the direction of polling of the general public favors the pro-gay forces.

When "don't ask, don't tell" was enacted in 1993, an NBC/Wall Street Journal poll showed 52 percent opposed to homosexuals serving openly and 43 percent in favor. By 2004, Gallup polling indicated 63 percent in favor of allowing homosexuals to serve against 32 percent opposed.

The culture war is like the recipe for boiling a frog. If you drop it in hot water, it jumps out. But if you drop it in cold water and slowly turn up the heat, you get frog soup.

Concession by concession, traditional values are being pushed, inexorably, to the margins of America.

It's a sign of this moral war of attrition that each battle is fought with less and less attention to what it means to the overall war.

Acceptance of openly gay people in the military means the next discussion will be qualification of gay couples for the same benefits received by traditional military families.

What would George Washington think?

"General Washington held a clear understanding of the rules for order and discipline, and as the original Commander-in-Chief, he was the first not only to forbid, but even to punish, homosexuals in the military.

An edict issued by the Continental Congress communicates the moral tone which lay at the base of Washington's actions:

The Commanders of . . . the thirteen United Colonies are strictly required to show in themselves a good example of honor and virtue to their officers and men and to be very vigilant in inspecting the behavior of all such as are under them, and to discountenance and suppress all dissolute, immoral, and disorderly practices, and also such as are contrary to the rules of discipline and obedience, and to correct those who are guilty of the same." 2

2. Journals of the American Congress (Washington: Way and Gideon, 1823), Vol. I, p. 185, on November 28, 1775.

Homosexuals in the Military

Every time this topic shows up, the apparently willful ignorance of some and outright disinformation campaign by others causes my blood pressure to spike. Therefore, whenever possible, I try to put the facts out for all to see:

The legal reality:

THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION Preamble. We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. [emphasis added]

In the very first paragraph of the foundational document of our country, the purpose of the military is defined. The military exists to provide for the common defense not to provide a specific “right” to serve in the military. As military service is not a “right,” all kinds of people are excluded for very good reasons, e.g., those physically, mentally or emotionally incapable of performing required tasks, as well as certain categories of law breakers such as felons, etc.,

THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, Article. I., Section. 8., [Congress shall have the power ] Clause 14: To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

As enacted by the United States Congress:

Uniform Code of Military Justice

925. ART. 125. SODOMY

(a) Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy. Penetration , however slight, is sufficient to complete the offense.

(b) Any person found guilty of sodomy shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

The following excerpt (passed in 1993) is from Public Law 103-160, Section 654, Title 10—"Homosexuality is incompatible with military service." (See Senate and House Reports, pages 293 and 287, respectively.)

Constitutional challenges to former and current military policies concerning homosexuals followed in the wake of the 1993 laws and regulations. Based on the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986) that there is no fundamental right to engage in consensual homosexual sodomy, the courts have uniformly held that the military may discharge a service member for overt homosexual behavior.

The logic reality:

Homosexuality is defined by behavior, i.e., unless one engages in sexual activity with a member of the same sex, he, or she, is not a homosexual. (Contrary to popular opinion, the term sexual orientation does not define one as a homosexual any more than the term, “lust” defines one as a rapist or the term “anger” defines one as a murderer or the term “greed” defines one as a thief.)

Any human behavior (not driven by autonomic or instinctual responses) that is not voluntary is, by definition, a psychosis.

Therefore, homosexual behavior is either a voluntary choice or a psychosis.

If homosexual behavior is a psychosis, then it is validly subject to treatment and possible cure. Nonetheless, treated or not, like other psychoses, it is grounds for exclusion from military service.

If homosexual behavior is a voluntary choice, then it is subject to the same types of societal and/or military behavioral regulations as is any other sexual behavior such as pedophilia, prostitution, polygamy, etc.

Homosexual behavior, in general, like theft, assault, drug abuse, etc., is counter to good order and discipline within any organization, especially a military one.

This fact, just as with excluding convicted felons or drug abusers, is sufficient reason to exclude homosexual behavior practitioners.

The fiscal reality:

Homosexual behavior practitioners are statistically subject to a much higher rate of HIV/AIDS and other deadly diseases than the general population.

This fact alone increases the cost of providing medical care for the services. Increased costs in the medical care arena means reduced financial capability to purchase military hardware and pay other military personnel benefits. In short, it decreases the capability of the country fiscally, to provide for the common defense.

However, there is another, even more compelling, reason for exclusion associated with the disease rate among homosexual behavior practitioners.

The combat asset risk reality:

Because HIV/AIDS and other diseases prevalent among homosexual practitioners qualify as blood-borne pathogens, the presence of homosexual behavior practitioners creates statistically increased, and completely unnecessary risk for the loss of combat resources. The long and short of this fact is that these diseases can be spread, among other ways, through contact with the blood of the diseased individual. The military is its own, largest source of material for blood transfusions. Additionally, in a battlefield setting there is never a shortage of blood to create exposure risks to those who are not homosexual practitioners.

Summary:

Homosexual behavior is illegal in the military for very good, legal, logical, fiscal and combat asset risk reasons. Those who have ignored these strictures, either, willfully, or inadvertently, under the so-called Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy have caused a tremendous waste of taxpayer resources as well as lowered morale within the military. These costs were entirely driven by individual homosexual practitioners’ hedonistic, selfish motives and behavior and resulted in unnecessary detriment to the mission capability of the US defense establishment.

“Homosexuality is defined by behavior, i.e., unless one engages in sexual activity with a member of the same sex, he, or she, is not a homosexual. (Contrary to popular opinion, the term sexual orientation does not define one as a homosexual any more than the term, ‘lust’ defines one as a rapist or the term “anger” defines one as a murderer or the term “greed” defines one as a thief.)”

This one always confuses me. So are you suggesting that they’re only homosexual WHILE they’re actually having sex with someone of the same sex? If not, how long does the effect last, afterwards? What about someone who had a same-sex encounter once in prison twenty years ago, but got out and never looked back? What about those who are raped by others of the same sex? Does the act have to be voluntary? Do you have to have sex with the opposite sex to be heterosexual, or are there heterosexual virgins out there?

Do you seriously think that there’s no difference between a guy who has the hots for guys and one who has the hots for girls, as long as they’ve never had sex? Would you distinguish between which one you’d want to marry your daughter?

I think this idea that sexual orientation is a non-entity is really misleading. Are you suggesting that Peter Pace could become just as homosexual as Elton John by getting drunk and having one sexual encounter with a dude?

This one always confuses me. So are you suggesting that they’re only homosexual WHILE they’re actually having sex with someone of the same sex?

If someone steals, is he or she only a thief while he or she is committing the theft? If someone intentionally, with fore thought and malice, stabs another to death, is he or she only a murder while killing the other person?

On the other hand, if some merely thinks about taking something that rightfully belongs to another, but takes no action, is he or she a thief? Similarly, if a person becomes so angry with another, that they fantasize about stabbing that person, is the day dreamer a murderer?

Do the answers to these questions clear up your confusion?

… how long does the effect last, afterwards?

How long after committing a theft is one a thief? How long after committing first degree homicide does the perpetrator remain a murderer?

What about someone who had a same-sex encounter once in prison twenty years ago, but got out and never looked back?

In deed, what about someone who intentionally cut anther person’s leg off as part of a gang ritual once twenty year ago, and never looked back?

What about those who are raped by others of the same sex? Does the act have to be voluntary?

If a bystander is shot by a thief in the course of a robbery, is the person who was shot guilty of theft?

Do you have to have sex with the opposite sex to be heterosexual, or are there heterosexual virgins out there?

Except for extremely rare cases of gynandromorphy, every person, even a homosexual behavior practitioner, is born heterosexual in that the person has the genitalia of one sex or the other.

Do you seriously think that there’s no difference between a guy who has the hots for guys and one who has the hots for girls, as long as they’ve never had sex?

Is there a difference between a guy who has the hots for sheep and one who has the hots for girls?

Would you distinguish between which one you’d want to marry your daughter?

Have you ever heard of something called a false dichotomy?

I think this idea that sexual orientation is a non-entity is really misleading. Are you suggesting that Peter Pace could become just as homosexual as Elton John by getting drunk and having one sexual encounter with a dude?

Could Peter Pace become just as much a murderer as Sirhan Sirhan by getting drunk and shooting just one dude?

Okay — I get your analogy with theft and murder, but your suggestion that the only thing that separates homosexuals and heterosexuals is behavioral still makes no sense to me. Even Jesus suggested that what’s in one’s heart is what’s important when it comes to such things as theft and lust.

When you say “...every person...is born heterosexual in that the person has the genitalia of one sex or the other” you are asserting that it’s something other than behavior that determines sexual orientation, namely the genitalia. I can see how they would determine sex, but not sexual orientation. You say that a person is a homosexual if he has sex with those of the same sex. People don’t change genitalia when they have same-sex encounters. Are they then both heterosexuals and homosexuals at the same time, even if they’ve never had sex with the opposite sex?

“Is there a difference between a guy who has the hots for sheep and one who has the hots for girls?”

I would say YES there IS a difference between the two. Wouldn’t you agree?

“Have you ever heard of something called a false dichotomy?”

I have — are you arguing that whether a virgin male is attracted to men or to women is a false dichotomy, and that you’d be equally happy to have either guy marry your daughter?

(Contrary to popular opinion, the term sexual orientation does not define one as a homosexual any more than the term, “lust” defines one as a rapist or the term “anger” defines one as a murderer or the term “greed” defines one as a thief.)

Okay — I get your analogy with theft and murder, but your suggestion that the only thing that separates homosexuals and heterosexuals is behavioral still makes no sense to me.

If a non-psychotic person in possession of feelings never acts upon them, then why can you not understand that applying a behavioral label based upon those feelings to that person inappropriate?

Even Jesus suggested that what’s in one’s heart is what’s important when it comes to such things as theft and lust.

While God or His Son can see into a person’s heart, mere humans cannot. Therefore, we are obliged to judge on the basis of what we can see: behavior.

If a man who is presumably mentally healthy, marries more than one woman, we call him a polygamist and legally sanction him accordingly. However, if he merely want to marry more than one woman in his heart but does not, do we call him a polygamist or visit legal sanctions upon him? It does not matter to any, except God, if he feels like marrying more than one woman but does not. For that matter, if a woman feels like she wants to sell her body, but does not, is she a prostitute?

Similarly, if a man feels like he wants to lie with another man as with a woman, but does not, then why is he any different the man who feels like he wants to marry more than one woman or the woman who feels like she wants to sell her body?

When you say “...every person...is born heterosexual in that the person has the genitalia of one sex or the other” you are asserting that it’s something other than behavior that determines sexual orientation, namely the genitalia.

Recall your original question: Do you have to have sex with the opposite sex to be heterosexual, or are there heterosexual virgins out there? You said nothing about sexual orientation. Remember that the term sexual orientation is about feelings. Being heterosexual is about the presence of one type of genitalia versus another. No one except God can know how you, or anyone else feels about your genitalia unless you take some action. Therefore, it is possible to be a heterosexual virgin, but it is impossible to be a homosexual behavior practitioner who is a virgin.

…are you arguing that whether a virgin male is attracted to men or to women is a false dichotomy, and that you’d be equally happy to have either guy marry your daughter?

The reason I raised the issue of a false dichotomy is because you presented one, not I. In that spirit, I will answer your question thusly: I want a mentally and physically healthy, gainfully employed, committed Christian, man to marry my daughter.

Your reply?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.